Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:51:33 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: netinet/in.h vs arpa/inet.h Message-ID: <p05101504b8aa0d344a9a@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20020305003557.C33110@espresso.q9media.com> References: <p05101502b8aa0629a3ff@[128.113.24.47]> <20020305003557.C33110@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:35 AM -0500 3/5/02, Mike Barcroft wrote: >Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes: > > Should I just remove the arpa/inet.h, or does this indicate that >> something isn't quite perfect with the recent changes to various >> include files under -current? > >This should be fixed shortly. The problem mainly stems from POSIX's >requirements for the ntohl() family of functions to be defined in >multiple headers. Okay, I'll just ignore it for now. Thanks! (I like ignoring stuff... :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05101504b8aa0d344a9a>